Underpaid wages
Since the inception of the United Kingdom’s National Minimum Wage scheme in 1999, there has been a 49% increase in its rate over the years. With booming construction industries, naturally, one would assume that the average income of an architect would also significantly have increased. Perceptions of how much an architect earns often does not match the reality, evident through the small 14% increase of average earnings over the last 10 years.
It is important to question the reasons for such inadequacy and underpaid wages.
Inaccessible to the masses
Historically, architects have been employed by wealthy clients. With wealth comes the opportunity to create custom made, grand designs we so often see marketed in professional portfolios across commercial platforms. This then, gives the impression that architecture is an art of luxury, and, therefore, the profession has become detached from the needs and aspirations of the wider population, leaving clients vulnerable to cowboy design and build companies involved in building activities.
Outdated fee structure
Traditionally, architects’ fees are charged in 3 ways. Firstly, a percentage fee, based on construction costs, offers the client a reasonable indication of an architect’s fee, whilst also allowing for some flexibility if the project scope changes. Secondly, a lump sum fee is often used for simple projects and finally, time charged fees which operate as a ‘pay as you go ‘approach.
Whilst these may have been appropriate previously, efficiencies in the way architecture is delivered has dramatically reduced time and resources. Drafting designs and specifications by hand was the norm 20 years ago, however, digital technologies have changed the way works are conducted, allowing for faster turnarounds, reduced overheads and administrative costs. Large and complex projects can be carried out with accuracy and speed.
Yet, these benefits are not reflected in architecture fees, thus, the marketplace for architectural services is not as competitive.
To attract clients and create a more innovative, competitive marketplace, the issue of fees should be revised.
Mismatched opportunities
As a result of this distant relation, you will often see clients armed with catalogues and measuring tapes purchasing from companies that sell kitchens, bathrooms and furnishing solutions at discounted rates.
You will also notice that no certified designers or architects are on hand to offer advice to ensure that such items are suitable and efficient, nor are they customised. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the client to seek tradesmen with the skills to build/fit purchased items, unless the company offers this as an additional service – a service which may take time and increase your budget.
Through utilising the services of an architect, these stresses and time would be eliminated.
Idealistic Expectations
People recognise the value of good design; thus, most architects aspire to create aesthetically pleasing designs, gaining recognition from their peers. For this reason, it is assumed that small projects are not worth, or maybe not deserving, of their time or effort, even though, there may be a desire for clients to engage with an architect for their building related needs.
Architects deserve better – they are both the problem and the solution.